(Editor’s Note: I first rolled this grenade into the room in December 2010 to gauge the reaction from readers. Now look at what has happened relating to Islam in the last two years. But does Islam pose a serious threat to any state that secedes and becomes a sovereign nation? Let us know your comments.)

On the 11th of December 2010, the first-ever suicide bombing in Scandinavia occurred when Taimour Abdulwahab, an Iraqi-born Muslim and Swedish citizen with a wife and children in Luton, Britain, was carrying explosives and mistakenly set off an explosion near a busy Christmas shopping street in Stockholm just before he could murder dozens of people.

Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, who is a passionate promoter of having Turkey as a full member of the European Union and Islam as an established part of European culture, stated that “We were extremely lucky… I mean minutes and just a couple of hundred metres from where it would have been very catastrophic.” Sweden’s intelligence agency and a news agency received an email with audio files in which a man called on “all hidden mujahedeen [Islamic holy warriors] in Europe, and especially in Sweden, it is now the time to fight back.” He criticized Sweden for its military presence in Afghanistan and its acceptance of the artist Lars Vilks, who had made some cartoons mocking Muhammad. The message warned that “now your children, daughters and sisters die like our brothers’ and sisters’ children die.”

We’ve been told for years that suicide bombers who blow themselves up in civilian areas in Israel are “freedom fighters struggling against Israeli occupation.” Does that mean that this Muslim blew himself up to protest against the Swedish occupation of Stockholm?

Sweden has no colonial history, at least not outside of northern Europe. It is a self-appointed champion of Third World countries and has virtually surrendered its third-largest city to immigrant mobs and substantial chunks of other cities, too. Swedish authorities are using the most extreme methods imaginable to suppress any dissent among the native people, who are being ethnically cleansed from their own land. The authorities always side with immigrants against the natives in the case of conflict. Muslims in Sweden can harass the natives as much as they want to and have access to all kinds of welfare goodies and a much higher standard of living than they would have in their own countries. In short, they have no imaginable, rational reason to complain, yet they still blow themselves up.

In Sweden, all the traditional excuses employed by Multiculturalists and Leftists throughout the Western world, fail. This leaves just one possible explanation, the only one never mentioned in Western mainstream media: That Muslims and their culture are fundamentally incompatible with our values and societies.

Hassan Moussa, who has worked as an imam at the largest mosque in the city of Stockholm, has earlier been accused of spreading double messages. What he said in his harsh speeches in Arabic didn’t match the text as translated in Swedish. A journalist warned that “Sweden’s mosques are slowly but surely being taken over” by the Muslim Brotherhood. Following the 2010 suicide bombing, Moussa’s recommendations for how to prevent similar events in the future involved giving more power to imams and having a “zero tolerance for Islamophobia.”

Prohibiting all forms of criticism or mockery of Islam and its Prophet is an essential part of sharia, Islamic religious law. According to Islamic historical sources, individuals such as the poetess Asma bint Marwan were killed by the followers of Muhammad for having done nothing other than mocking Islam. This then became a part of the Sunna, the personal example of Muhammad and his companions, which is the most authoritative source of Islamic law next to the Koran itself. It was for the same reason that Theo van Gogh was murdered in Amsterdam in 2004. Yes, mainstream, traditional Islam today stipulates that those who mock Islam deserve to be murdered. No other major religion on this planet dictates anything similar.

It sounds nearly unbelievable to the average person that one of the largest religions on Earth, which is “respected” by the United Nations and political leaders worldwide, can be that bad, but this is unfortunately true. Not only is this the case, but the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the largest voting bloc at the UN, is teaming up with other dictatorships and African nations as we speak to ban “Islamophobia” across the world, also in the West.

Islam is more totalitarian than the most totalitarian ideologies that have ever existed in the Western world. Even Der Führer or Comrade Stalin never expected or demanded that every single man should copy all of their personal habits and their silly little mustaches, for which we should be eternally grateful. Islam, on the other hand, stipulates that all men everywhere and for all times should copy Muhammad’s personal habits and example in minute detail.

Islam is a creed which says that men should urinate like Muhammad and that Muslims should wage a war against all other men on the planet until they, too, urinate like their Prophet. This is a provocative way of putting things, yes, but theologically speaking it is not incorrect. While Muhammad was not divine he was, as some Muslims say, the “living Koran.” John L. Esposito in Islam: The Straight Path, one of the most pro-Islamic books in existence, states:

“Muslims look to Muhammad’s example for guidance in all aspects of life: how to treat friends as well as enemies, what to eat and drink, how to make love and war. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in the growth of Prophetic traditions….His impact on Muslim life cannot be overestimated, since he served as both religious and political head of Medina: prophet of God, ruler, military commander, chief judge, lawgiver. As a result, the practice of the Prophet, his Sunna or example, became the norm for community life. Muslims observed and remembered stories about what the Prophet said and did. These reports or traditions (hadith) were preserved and passed on in oral and written form. The corpus of hadith literature reveals the comprehensive scope of Muhammad’s example; he is the ideal religiopolitical leader as well as the exemplary husband and father. Thus when many Muslims pray five times each day or make the pilgrimage to Mecca, they seek to pray as the Prophet prayed, without adding or subtracting from the way Muhammad is reported to have worshipped. Traditions of the Prophet provide guidance for personal hygiene, dress, eating, marriage, treatment of wives, diplomacy, and warfare.”

According to sharia, non-Muslim dhimmis can on certain conditions be allowed to retain their lives under Islamic rule, provided that they remain totally submissive to Muslims at all times. Any perceived “insult,” however slight, could immediately trigger violent reactions. In practice, a mere rumor that anybody has done something which displeases Muslims can cause retaliations and murders. This is how Christians in Pakistan or elsewhere live on a daily basis, constantly fearful of Jihadist attacks, and this is how many Muslims want us to live as well. Meanwhile, our authorities, intellectuals and mass media continue to import people who are plotting to murder us while we have our genetalia screened and checked at our airports.

If a single non-Muslim says anything critical about Islam, his entire community can in principle be punished for this. Basically, this means that if one cartoonist in Germany, the USA or Denmark makes a cartoon mocking Muhammad, this could potentially trigger Jihadist terrorist attacks against his entire country for “waging a war against Islam,” because his “tribe” is held collectively responsible for his actions. This was exactly the Islamic logic behind Taimour Abdulwahab’s terror attack in Stockholm. There is no such thing as an individual in this culture; the tribe is everything. Muslims, being good hypocrites, are always the first following an Islamic terrorist attack to state that all Muslims should not be punished for the actions of a few, yet this is precisely what their own laws prescribe for non-Muslims.

Before the general elections in 2006 the Swedish Muslim League, the largest Islamic organization in the country, published a long list where they not merely requested, but essentially demanded, separate family laws for Muslims; that public schools should employ imams to teach homogeneous classes of Muslims children in the language of their original homeland. (The Swedish city of Malmö already has pre-school classes where all teaching is conducted in Arabic. This is “good for integration.”); a “mosque in every municipality,” built through interest-free loans made available by local municipalities to demonstrate “Islam’s right to exist in Sweden” and to “heighten the status of and respect for” Muslims; separation between boys and girls in gymnastics and swimming education; and laws instating Islamic holidays as public holidays for Muslims. Swedes should also ensure that all Muslims get two hours off from work during the congregational Friday prayer every week and an Islamic burial ground available in every municipality in which there are Muslims. Last, but not least, they demanded that the authorities and the already heavily censored, pro-Multicultural mass media should take even stronger steps to combat “Islamophobia” in the general public.

These demands were rejected back then, but they will be repeated, not just in Sweden but throughout the Western world. As long as we have sizeable Muslim communities here this is inevitable. Muslims are not here to live in peace as equals; they are here to colonize, subjugate, harass and dominate us. Their holy book, the Koran, demands nothing less.

But if all of this is true, how can we coexist peacefully with Muslims in our countries? The short answer is that we cannot. No matter how much you appease them, it will never be enough. As a matter of fact, since they come from a culture which respects only brute force they will despise you as weak and become more aggressive if you try to reason with them.

Their religion also states that Muslims are the “best of peoples” – the true master race – and that they are destined by Allah to rule all mankind. They are filled with illusions of grandeur and superiority, yet the harsh reality is that their societies are lagging behind those of others. This constitutes an inversion of the natural order which can only have been caused by demonic actions and must be reversed at all costs. As long as they remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a religious duty for them to do so.

So why don’t you hear this from most Western political leaders or mass media? Because they are lying to you, plain and simple. The truth is that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam; that nobody has yet managed to come up with a credible theoretical way to reform Islam; and that there are no practical indications of any softening or modernization of Islam actually taking place. Since the adherents of this creed in its present form are waging a war of annihilation against us and the civilization we have created, this leaves only one possible conclusion if we wish to retain our culture and freedom: Physical separation. Islam and those who practice it must be totally and permanently removed from all Western nations.

Potential objections can be raised to this solution. One is that it might provoke Muslims and trigger a world war. To this I will say that our mere existence as free and self-ruled peoples constitutes a provocation to them. Besides, we are already in a world war. Technically speaking, it started 1400 years ago, the mother of all wars. Against European civilization it has witnessed two main phases, the first one with the Arabs in early medieval times, and the second one with the Turks in early modern times. This is the third Islamic Jihad, and it has penetrated deeper into Europe than ever before because we don’t fight back. If the other guy walks up to you and starts punching you in the face then you are already in a fight, whether you want this or not. If you do not defend yourself properly then you have already lost.

Another objection is that expelling Muslims from the West would not end the war. They would merely continue from their original home countries, aided by missiles and modern technology. This could well be true. The separationist strategy does not imply that removing Islam from the West alone is all that will ever be required, only that this is the bare minimum that is acceptable. If Muslims remain aggressive, we retain the option of further actions, including directly targeting their holy cities of Mecca and Medina using conventional or non-conventional weapons. Having large numbers of Muslims in our societies is anyway very costly, and the aggressive fifth column in our midst will severely limit our freedom of action.

Finally, one could claim that the overall problem with the modern West is the general mass immigration and Multiculturalism promoted by our treasonous elites and that Islam merely constitutes a secondary infection. This is also partly true. No, just because Muslim immigration is especially bad does not mean that all other forms of immigration are unproblematic. Nevertheless, Muslims top the list over hostile aliens who do not belong in European or European-derived nations. The Islamic threat is real and needs to be dealt with.

The Serbian-American writer Serge Trifkovic, author of the book Defeating Jihad, has stated that the ongoing failure by their entrusted leaders to demographically protect European and European-derived nations constitutes the greatest betrayal in history. I am tempted to agree with him. In the end, the traitors and fifth columnists we have in our media and academia must be removed from power and replaced with people who are loyal to us and our nations.

(Editor’s Note: I wrote this in 2009, and it was the first article I posted at DumpDC.)

I read an essay by the late Murray Rothbard recently, taken from his book “Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature.” In the essay, he focuses on the reasons that people choose to be Libertarians, and the reasons others choose Utilitarianism. (note that he wrote “Libertarians,” not “liberty.” One can love liberty without becoming a Libertarian.)

I admit that I did not have a clear understanding of the definition of the word “utilitarianism.” So, I looked it up in a few dictionaries. To my utter shock, I discovered the philosophical underpinning of our US Federal Government.

Webster’s Dictionary defines “utilitarianism” thus:

“1. The doctrine that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the end and aim of all social and political institutions. –Jeremy Bentham.

2. The doctrine that virtue is founded in utility, or that virtue is defined and enforced by its tendency to promote the highest happiness of the universe. –John Stuart Mill.

3. The doctrine that utility is the sole standard of morality, so that the rectitude of an action is determined by its usefulness.”

A few thoughts have percolated through my gray matter in this regard:

A. Every person has a worldview. It is a compilation of experience and education. It is the filter…the eyeglasses, so to speak…through which we evaluate our world and the cosmos. Many people go through their entire lives unaware of their own worldview, but it’s always there. It may change as life passes, or it can remain calcified for a lifetime.

Your worldview will either draw you to, or repel you from, certain things. But your worldview is the yardstick with which you measure all things. So, in this context, a person that believed strongly in individual rights, natural law and property rights would be repelled by strong government. Conversely, a person who believed in the efficacy of government would be drawn to Utilitarianism.

Capitalism, and the US Constitution, were built on absolutes, an iron stake driven into frozen earth. Utilitarianism is as fluid as water, seeking its own level, and taking the shape of its container. Capitalism has inviolable principles, and the Constitution strictly limited the scope of the Federal Government. Utilitarianism goes along to get along, and forsakes absolutes.

Utilitarianism is an existentialist manifestation of “situational ethics.” If one promotes the greatest good for the greatest number, one must also accept that the “greatest good” will change from issue to issue. One must also accept that the “greatest good” is defined by those with the power and the guns. So Utilitarianism can’t stand absolutes.

B. Utilitarians are kindred spirits with Socialists. Socialism is a kind of political midpoint on the journey from Capitalism to Communism. The USA began with a Capitalist worldview combined with fierce protection of individual property rights. Utilitarian politicians have, over time, eroded those property rights with laws supposedly promoting the greatest good for the greatest number. But Capitalism has now become Mercantilism in America. The government oppresses the masses to create competitive advantages for a select few. Naturally, those laws would require ever-creeping governmental control over property rights. Socialists can tolerate Capitalism so long as the government has primary control over the economy, citizens and their property rights. So, Socialists are all Utilitarians, but not all Utilitarians are necessarily Socialists.

C. Nature abhors a vacuum. As Capitalist/Constitutional absolutes have been forsaken, Utilitarian doctrine has rushed into the void. We now have a Federal Government filled with people that believe that utility is the sole standard of morality, so that the rectitude of an action is determined by its usefulness. That is the very reason why Congress could vote in favor a multi-billion dollar bailout of the financial markets when the bailout is clearly unconstitutional.

Finally, in the tragedy and comedy which is the US Federal Government, they prove, once again, that they cannot even make Utilitarianism work correctly. They turn it on its head, and the greatest number become the sheep, sheared to bring the greatest good to a small special interest who are generous with their campaign contributions.

American politicians, constantly jonesin’ for a vote fix to satisfy their addiction for power, promise that what THEY propose will return “high-paying jobs” to America once more. Messrs. Romney and Obama are presently jockeying for position on this very topic. It’s one of the most cynical, dastardly lies they tell to credulous Americans and to each other.

The Free Republic of North America will be the only location on the planet where high-paying jobs will again exist. But it won’t be for the reason most people think. More on that later.

If you visit DumpDC regularly, you know what a “connotation word” is. I have written about them many times. “High-paying jobs” is a connotation phrase. A connotation phrase is one that carries a subjective cultural or emotional association. An example of a connotation word is “God.” Your emotional or cultural interpretation of that word might be the little statue in the corner that you bow down to, burn candles to, and offer chicken blood on an altar. Another person’s mental picture might be the God painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. But I can manipulate you by the use of the word so that you either agree with me or disagree with me. My definition of the word or phrase is probably not the same as yours. A dishonest person used that to his advantage.

So it is with “high-paying jobs.” What does “high” mean? As compared to what? What is the yardstick with which we measure high-ness?

I contend that high-paying jobs are a relic of the American past, never to return to American shores. Let me walk you through my thought process on this issue.

The level of technological manufacturing has never been higher than it is today. A large percentage of that manufacturing is done outside the USA. American manufacturers are getting their products built overseas. But has quality gone to hell?

No. It’s better than ever. But market forces are at work globally…even in a market distorted by the Dollar.

In the free market, competitors will challenge your offering of goods or services in one of three ways:

Where are LOTS of the highest technology products of the planet built? China. China has cornered the market on technological manufacturing. According to Forbes.com, tech workers earn about $1.50 per hour in a company like Foxconn, which manufactures the iPad, the iPod, the iPhone, Kindle, Playstation and Xbox 360. But its 2011 revenue was $102.74 BILLION. And the world snaps up its manufactured products as fast as lightning.

Here are some tidbits of information about your Chinese competition:

1. In China today there are over 320 million people that speak English. That means they are all at least bilingual. It is also a number greater than the entire population of the USA.
2. The US individual savings rate is zero. The Chinese individual savings rate is 34%, and a lot of those savings ARE IN GOLD.

You can tell me about currency manipulation, free trade agreements, tariffs, duties, and lots of other advantages or disadvantages allegedly held by one nation or another. But here is what I observe:
1. A bilingual Chinese worker will be trained to perform very high-tech world-class manufacturing skills…and then perform those skills for about 15% of the wage that American workers expect.
2. The American corporations that manufacture offshore are not subject to the burdensome American regulations (like OSHA and ADA) that they suffer on American soil, are they?
3. Offshore workers are not subject to unemployment insurance, Worker’s Compensation or Obamacare, are they?
4. American corporations can lawfully incorporate in other countries and leave their profits offshore so they are not subject to confiscatory Washington taxation, can’t they?

So just exactly HOW and WHY are American corporations going to bring “high-paying jobs” back to North America? What would be their motivation? All of the reasons they moved operations offshore still exist, and Washington is not going to roll back laws, taxation or regulation to bring those jobs home. Corporations exist to enrich the shareholders, not to perform some social function for “the greater good.”

Now let’s discuss what Washington has done to cheat the entire planet.

The world economy is a balloon inflated by the US Dollar. The tools Washington has used are (1) fiat currency, (2) fractional reserve banking, and (3) inflation caused by issuing trillions of dollars with no underlying value. Because the dollar lost 95% of its value since 1971, wages have been stagnant for over 40 years.

According to InflationData.com, you would need $568.84 in 2012 to have the same buying power that $100 had in 1971, the year in which Richard Nixon closed the gold convertability window for the US Dollar.

So, using the same calculator, a non-union carpenter that earned $10.00 per hour in 1971 would have to earn $56.88 per hour in 2012 just to have the same purchasing power that he had in 1971. Do you know any non-union carpenters that earn $56.88 per hour? Neither do I. And remember…that $56.88 does not reflect any raise in pay due to an increase in productivity. THAT IS JUST TO BREAK EVEN and maintain purchasing power. $56.88 times 2,080 hours (40 hours/wk. x 52 weeks) is $118,310.40. Once again…do you know any non-union carpenters who earn $118K per year? Me neither. I can hire all the carpenters I want today for $25 per hour here in Atlanta.

This calculation is the same for all of us. Inflationdata.com states that the average annual inflation rate since 1914 is 3.24%. That is 98 years, friends. I think it has become a trend by now. And, because of the Quantitative Easings I, II and III, the inflation rate is poised to skyrocket into insolvency. DC has no choice but to either continue printing fiat money and buy Treasury bonds, or allow interest rates to increase, which will drive DC into insolvency. There is no third choice for Washington.

Dear Readers, is there any solution for this problem? Yes there is.

SECESSION.

The Free Republic of North America will be able to DOMINATE the global manufacturing marketplace because of:
1. Its metals-backed money. Precious metals money NEVER has inflation. EVER. The free market determines the prices for goods and services based upon metal weights, not fiat currencies. Hard money chases out bad money. FRONA has no central bank, and therefore has no opportunity to steal from the citizens through monetary policy. And by protecting the value of the money by not regulating or monopolizing it, FRONA creates an irresistible draw to businesses. Imagine living in a place where you KNOW your money will have the same value year in and year out.
2. The business of the Free Republic of North America is business. FRONA’s charter commitment to individual liberty and property rights naturally favors transactions between individuals. And businesses are organic extensions of individuals. What is a corporation but individuals investing together seeking a return on their investment? When property rights and contracts are held sacred, and not subject to governmental abrogation, business can thrive.
3. Regulation. FRONA’s Founders were smart enough to write a simple Charter that gives FRONA very limited functions. All else is left up to the citizens of FRONA to figure out on their own in the free market. FRONA will not be weighed down with the American-style regulations that chased business from its own shores. The absence of regulations will be an irresistible magnet to global companies to locate within The Free Republic. And don’t forget that the cost of American regulations is built into every product. But not in FRONA.
4. Taxation. No corporate taxes? No property taxes? No duties or tariffs? No Social Security, Medicare, or income tax withholding? Entire accounting departments that exist in American companies will not exist in FRONA companies. No tax other than the national sales tax could mean lower priced goods and services, or more profit for the business owner. Or both.

High-paying jobs are jobs in which the labor cost of a product or service allows an individual to trade his time for money at a price that may use less of his time and provide more free time for that individual. High-paying jobs are a function of what any goods or services take to produce. High-paying jobs are those in which the workers have a superior level of training and/or experience, and they are able to negotiate more money paid to them per hour of labor. And all that is due to the free market, which decides the price of any goods or services by supply and demand.

In FRONA, people will no longer denominate every transaction in Dollars. They will conduct commerce in WEIGHT AND PURITY. When someone asks your hourly rate, you might reply that you work for one ounce of “999” (99.9% pure) silver per hour. In today’s US Dollar, that would translate to about $34.00 per hour.

So the high-ness of a so-called “high-paying job” will be relative to the monetary unit in which it is measured. Sure, there will be high-paying jobs in FRONA. But not measured in Dollars. And they will exist because FRONA has created THE ONLY free-market environment where they can exist.

If US politicians can get you jobs that pay $56.88 an hour, but that money has only the purchasing power of $10 in 1971, what have they actually done for you? They have stolen your money’s value. And the higher the inflation rate, the more dollars it will take to buy goods and services. So if you earn $500 an hour or $5,000 an hour, you’re a sucker and DC knows it. They count on it.

Secession is the only hope for mankind to enjoy individual liberty and property rights in North America.

DumpDC. Six Letters That Can Change History.

Copyright 2012 Russell D. Longcore. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly given, provided full credit is given.

The Nation I: Romney won Illinois and Puerto Rico. The yawn-fest continues. And when I listened to National Public Radio on the way to work Wednesday morning, they announced that Gingrich was a “distant third.” The truth is that Newt finished behind Ron Paul in fourth place. The media blackout of Ron Paul also continues…

The Nation II: Remember the Emancipation Proclamation? Lincoln freed the slaves…in the SOUTH, which had already seceded and was a separate and sovereign nation. Well, President Barry did an Emancipation Proclamation of his own on Thursday. He flew to Oklahoma and said he would set free the Southern portion of the XL pipeline project. While he was walking around taking credit for the pipeline, he forgot to mention one thing. The only portion of the XL pipeline that requires his signature is the NORTHERN section that crosses an international border. He vetoed that portion a few months ago. Oooops.

The Nation III: Congressman Paul Ryan announced his newest new plan for reorganizing the Federal budget. His budget would spend $5.3 trillion LESS than the Obama budget over the next ten years. Both Ryan and Obama think it’s perfectly OK to spend over $3 trillion each year into the future. And at least 40% of those budgets are borrowed money. But remember that both budgets are projections and bullshit. And all politicians do these projections over ten years, when they know that the only budget they can control is the current year. Ron Paul said that if he was President he would cut a trillion dollars in spending IN THE FIRST YEAR. That is truth. Ryan is a lying piece of shyt trying to make a name for himself. But I wish him massive success because the faster Congress screws the country, the faster Washington and the dollar will collapse, and the faster secession will be able to happen here in North America.

The Nation IV: Our President/Overseer/Savior(aka POS) Obama cravenly told reporters today, “If I had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin.” Here is yet another high-tech lynching, but this time, it will be a white guy. When asked about the shooting, Candidate Rick Santorum called it a “heinous crime.” Both of these empty suits are lawyers, and should know better. How about saving your comments until AFTER a thorough investigation has been done? Yes…a 17-year-old boy has been shot to death. But I don’t know it was murder, and neither does anybody else right now…except maybe the police. But George Zimmerman has yet to be arrested and charged with ANYTHING. Screaming crowds, talking heads and black activists do not constitute physical evidence of a crime. May the Sanford Police allow their professionalism to prevail at a time in which the media and masses have lost their minds.You might find this article about George Zimmerman a fresh breath of truth: Zimmerman’s Story

International I: I find it implausible that Iran does NOT already have nuclear weapons technology. They have had nuclear reactors for electricity since the Shah was in office. Maybe they don’t already have a nuclear weapon built. But enriching radioactive material the old way produces plutonium. But there is an alternative. The Liquid Sodium Thorium Reactor (LSTR) is a technology that goes back to the 1960s, and is entirely SAFE. There are no radioactive waste products and no plutonium. So my point is that the only reason any nation would continue to use uranium is that they WANT plutonium as a part of the process. And, are there any nations that use nuclear reactors for electricity that do not have nuclear weapons? It’s not a coincidence.

International II: Soldiers from the West African nation Mali overthrew President Amadou Toumani Toure this week. The former president’s whereabouts are not presently known. Toure came to power in 1991 when he seized power in a coup, overthrowing another guy who had staged a coup in 1968. Apparently what goes around, comes around.

International III: Portugal is next in line for a bailout. They need $12 Billion in loans to avert default. Spain is making noises about default too. And Germany is expected to be the source of the bailouts. I love this. The Euro was a terrible idea back in 1999, and Europe is getting what it deserves. Nations that give up their sovereignty in monetary policy are stupid. If the Euro fails, will any of the nations of the European Union have the good sense to issue currency backed by gold? Don’t hold your breath. I see some new fiat currency based on nothing in Europe’s future.

Shameless Plug: Have you ever dreamed of owning a home-based business? It’s a dream shared by millions of people who crave freedom from bosses. But it’s much, much more…and today I want you to concentrate on TIME FREEDOM. You can always earn more money somehow, but you cannot earn more time. Spend it foolishly and it is forever gone. Long hours on the job steal time from you and your family. Did you get married and have kids just so you could bring home a paycheck but not spend time in their lives? Do you feel guilty when you miss important events because you have to work? You can take control of your life with the RIGHT kind of home business. To learn more about my Energy business, go to: MasterpieceEnergy.com. Watch the opening video about “Lifestyle.” Then look to the left and click on “Defining Moments” to learn about a truly recession-proof business.

Business: Corporations in America are hoarding cash. The Wall Street Journal says that non-financial corporations on the S&P 500 are retaining more than $1.2 TRILLION in cash. Why? Lack of predictability in the economy, and the fecklessness of Washington DC. Also, companies are anticipating and preparing for how hard they are going to get hammered by ObamaCare. Want to revitalize the economy, DC? Slash real spending this year. Lay off government workers, shrink government departments, dissolve programs. And stop “Quantitative Easing,” which is just another way of saying printing counterfeit money.

Economy I: The number of actual new unemployment claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 315,636 in the week ending March 17th, down 24,441 from the week previous. Yet once again, the Labor Department reported 348,000 new jobless claims…a number higher than the real number by over 32,000!! Can someone out there explain to me why DC would over-report the number of new claims? What kind of drooling morons are on their payroll? Perhaps some of the unemployed could count better than the government employees.

Sports: Remember the nice things I said about the owner of the Indianapolis Colts, and that he had some common sense by releasing Peyton Manning? Apparently Pat Bowlen, the owner of the Denver Broncos, and Broncos executive John Elway, are suffering from altitude sickness. Not enough oxygen is getting to their brains. The Broncos bought Manning for $96 million over five years, and traded away Tim Tebow to the Jets. The rookie QB took Denver to the playoffs last year and put a lot of butts in the stadium seats. But I guess that wasn’t good enough for his rookie year. So let me get this straight. You spend a ton of money to acquire a 36-year-old player…great as he has been…that has had four neck surgeries in two years and represents the past. And then you trade away a 25-year-old spark plug that represents the future. This deal will work hard on Tim Tebow’s Christian forgiveness…and the Denver fans’ forgiveness too.

Sports II: Sean Peyton, head coach for the New Orleans Saints, has been suspended from coaching for A YEAR by the NFL for his role in the Saints’ bounty scandal that put price tags on opposing players. Somebody on the team paid cash bonuses to players that injured key players on other teams. That’s thuggery, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell was right to suspend Peyton. Winning is not everything.

Entertainment: Comedian Gallagher is retiring from performing after 32 years of cracking wise and smashing melons with a big hammer. Here’s one from Gallagher: “Why does it say “On” and “Off” on a light switch? If it’s on you can see it’s on and if it’s off, you can’t see to read.” One more: “How does a slut feel? Whore-a-ble.” Even Rush Limbaugh would like that last one!

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an expansive article about unalienable rights. We all seem to just refer to the Declaration of Independence and what Jefferson wrote, and then defer to it. But natural law and unalienable rights are where it all starts.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights… Self-Evident. Obvious. Perhaps it was self-evident to the 18th Century common man, but I submit to you that the common 21st Century mind is not equally equipped. Much of the wisdom of the ages has been withheld from the modern man by the government schools. And why not? If you were a government, both tasked by The People to educate them and controlled by the same People, why teach generation after generation how to control you? Why not teach those generations how to be controlled? Self-evident truths bow to governmental self-preservation when The People aren’t watching vigilantly.

Building a tower requires building a firm foundation FIRST…or your tower goes over when the winds blow hard. Gentle readers, we’re in a CAT 5 hurricane right now that’s going to take down our American tower. If you do not have a working understanding of unalienable rights, you’ll likely fall for the next iteration of oppressive, tyrannical government foisted upon an uneducated populace who move their lips when they read. And if you don’t truly understand this philosophy, you cannot possibly teach it to your young.

Unalienable rights are also known as Natural Law or Absolute Rights. In this article these terms will be interchangeable. Also, the use of a male pronoun or the word “man” means all humans.

We begin with a definition of “Unalienable:”

“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523. One cannot sell, transfer or surrender unalienable rights. The Creator bestowed them on every individual. All human beings possess unalienable rights. Unalienable rights cannot be taken nor surrendered but they can be simply ignored. This is a little like the story Jesus told about the prodigal son. A recalcitrant son learns through tough lessons that he cannot escape his father’s love nor his rights as his father’s son.

But can we find natural human rights without a recognition of a Creator? Yes, without a doubt. What you’ll learn here about Natural Law dwells in the heart of every human being simply because he exists. The concept of Unalienable Rights is life-affirming whether or not you believe in a Higher Power, since the concept showcases the uniqueness of the human being in this world. Unalienable Rights are the highest form of humanness while at the same time the most elementary of man’s characteristics.

Unalienable or Inalienable?

There is a very serious error made throughout America as related to Unalienable Rights. That is, that many people use the term “Inalienable Rights” and think that the terms are interchangeable. But they are as different as night and day.

Inalienable Rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

Inalienable rights can be transferred, sold or surrendered if you give your consent. Inalienable rights are not bestowed by the Creator or inherent in humans. ”Persons” have inalienable rights, and the word “Person” is a legal term¹. Inalienable rights can be bestowed to persons by government, and can be likewise removed from persons by government. At times, government itself can be considered a “Person” in a legal sense. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

Therefore, because we possess Unalienable Rights, endowed by our Creator, to secure these rights(not grant or create them), “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”² And the rights we bestow upon government are the Inalienable Rights that we all possess that can be transferred to other persons.

We’re going to build this like a pyramid, much like the Hierarchy of Needs developed by Professor Abraham Maslow, Ph.D. He placed the bedrock human needs as the base of the pyramid, these being the most fundamental needs upon which all others are built. Physiological needs are first, simple survival of the human body. Next up comes Safety, then Love, Esteem, then Self-actualization as the headstone.

Maslow's Hierarchy Of Needs

I don’t have a cool graphic for Unalienable Rights, so you’ll just have to look at Maslow’s pyramid and use your imagination. It won’t be all that hard.

The Right of Life

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of “certain Unalienable Rights,” he placed them in the proper order, with Life being the first and most basic of all. This is the right to simply exist as a sentient being…one able to perceive sensations, a consciousness. Unalienable rights come into being at the moment that a human becomes a human. I do not mean when the individual becomes a viable human, capable of life outside the womb. Both sides of the abortion issue agree that a zygote…a human female egg fertilized by a male sperm…is human, and that every day after it becomes an embryo for about 270 days it is human. Our right to life means our right to express our humanness and to simply be alive. The opposite is the death of a human being. The right to life gets very complicated, since none of us were able to leave the womb and live without assistance, sustenance and support. An argument about embryonic viability here entirely misses the point, since even post-birth humans need daily care until at least age 5 (or 10) or they will likely die. So along with our own innate right to life, we acknowledge our responsibility to assist other human life to exist and express itself. Maslow pointed to the need of breathing, food, water, sleep, sex, homeostasis and excretion…all part of maintaining life, and without any one of those needs, life would eventually stop. Note here that the right of life is seldom exercised individually, but is inextricably tied to the lives of others.

Right of Personal Security

The next step up the Unalienable Rights pyramid is the right to protect one’s very life and bodily existence. And by acknowledging the duties we have to others to whom we give life…our progeny…we extend the right to protect their lives also. Personal security first means that our bodies are safe from harm. That security encompasses both protection by others while we are unable to secure our own safety and protecting ourselves and our loved ones after we become capable of assuring our own safety. Note here that the right of personal security is seldom exercised individually, but is inextricably tied to the safety of others. The Second Amendment has its foundation in this unalienable human right, relying upon it to secure a free state through the use of a militia. The Second Amendment is not the “right” to keep and bear arms. It is the restriction on Congress to violate the Unalienable Right of Personal Security. Both the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments were supposed to secure this Right.

The Right of Labor

The first manifestation of the greater Right of Property is found in the Right of Labor. Every human being owns the work of his own mind and hands, and any hindrance to his employing his mental and physical ability in whatever method he thinks proper, without causing injury to another individual, would be a violation of the Right of Labor. This right will be found in Maslow’s Safety block.

Right to Acquire and Enjoy Property

“Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product is a slave.” Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

This Right touches all of the other Unalienable Rights. First, a human fully possesses his own body, and may do with it what he pleases, as long as his choices do not violate the property rights of another human. Next, man owns his labor and may use his labor for his own subsistence. He may use his labor as an expression of value or a medium of exchange, and may freely exchange that value to acquire property. Then he may have quiet enjoyment of his property according to any manner that best reflects his happiness. Property may take the form of physical assets, but may also be less tangible assets like intellectual property. Property rights mean ownership and control, which includes the right to use an asset as well as the right to prohibit others from using the asset. Property rights also allow the owner to determine the value of an asset, and to even destroy an asset if he so chooses. The only restriction on the Unalienable Right of Property is that it does not infringe upon the Unalienable Rights of others.

As John Locke stated in The Second Treatise on Government (1690) “The great and chief end therefore of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property.” What man would willingly join a society that did not protect his enjoyment of the fruits of his own labor?

In The Wealth of Nations (1776), Adam Smith states that “private property created a role for government in defending property (rights), and the existence of government created the security to stimulate the creation of new property.” Many today wonder why the economies of the nations are in such dreadful shape. But most governments around the world are undermining property rights, the very reason for their existence. When there is no predictability in the marketplace, and individuals are preyed upon by governments, the incentive for creating new property is diminished or altogether extinguished. Those still seeking to create new property will migrate to the governments that best protect property rights. That’s why capital is leaving America for foreign locations and will continue to do so.

Right to Contract

This Unalienable Right gives all individuals the liberty to voluntarily enter into contract with any other individual or group of individuals, so long as there is agreement as to the terms of the contract by all parties involved, and so long as the contractual agreement does not violate another individual’s Unalienable Rights. Therefore, in light of property rights, individuals may sell their labor to an employer at mutually agreeable terms. Individuals may profit from the disposition of other property by mutual agreement.

All Unalienable Rights preceded the establishment of governments. However, governments chafe mightily under this Right. In America, the years 1897 to 1937 were a 40-year period in which the US Supreme Court vigorously protected the Right to Contract. This period of time is called the “Lochner years,” referring to Lochner v. New York (1905). In Lochner, the High Court struck down a New York statute that set maximum working hours. Justice Rufus Peckham, writing for the majority, stated that the Due Process Clauses found in the 5th and 14th Amendments were stout enough to protect the Unalienable Right to Contract, and that the State of New York had no business restricting the hours that an employee and employer may agree to. After 1937, the Court has relentlessly attacked the Right to Contract, supporting laws like the minimum wage and child labor statutes. Most of the burdensome Federal regulations are attacks on the Right to Contract, since they require parties to contracts to perform acts that they would likely not agree to if given a choice.

Right of Free Speech

This is the freedom to speak freely, provided that your speech does not violate the free speech of other individuals. The Right of Free Speech is an absolute right, subject to no other restrictions than another individual’s Unalienable Rights. Naturally, your liberty to speak does not allow for libel, slander, fraud or falsehood. This is another Unalienable Right which governments despise, and most governments do not allow untrammeled free speech. And free speech may take many forms, such as spoken, written, printed and performed.

Right of Beliefs or Conscience

Individuals have an Unalienable Right to believe what they wish, to worship as their conscience dictates, or as a negative right, to not believe or not worship as their conscience dictates.

Right of Personal Liberty

The classical liberal (the good kind) concept of personal liberty is as a moral principle in which an individual is free to govern himself, his life and his property without outside compulsion, force or fraud, provided that his personal governance does not intrude upon or violate the liberty of another individual.

Right to the Pursuit of Happiness

“Striving to find meaning in one’s life is the primary motivational force in man.” ~ Dr. Viktor Frankl, 1992

The Pursuit of Happiness provides the vehicle through which man can find life’s meaning.

The Pursuit of Happiness would be found on Maslow’s pyramid at the very top as a Self-Actualization need. But this Right encapsulates all the other Rights and cannot be accomplished until the other Unalienable Rights are in place and utilized. Your pursuit of happiness would be short-circuited if you do not enjoy the Rights to Life, Labor, Property, Contract, Belief and Liberty.

To understand how this phrase “the pursuit of happiness” found its way into the Declaration of Independence, you must know some background about Thomas Jefferson. He was strongly influenced by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, even referring to himself as an Epicurean. The teacher’s philosophy was simple: if you cultivated close personal relationships, limited your desires to the necessities of life, and found joy in the moment, you would find happiness. Everything in moderation.

Conclusion

Think about a Being that creates humans, then endows them with Unalienable Rights simply because they are human, and the pinnacle of their Rights being the Right to the Pursuit of Happiness! Not its attainment, but the pursuit. The Creator is no cosmic Joker, playing a cynical game by creating a desire in the breast of each human being for happiness, but having no available tools to meet the desire. We are endowed with the desire, the ability and the Unalienable Rights necessary to live a life of purpose and meaning, and to pass on those purposes and those meanings to subsequent generations, all seeking the same outcomes.

Share this article with those you love. Then discuss it. Teach your children these lessons so they understand how the Creator meant for them to live. Understanding your Unalienable Rights will give you a reason to live, a gratefulness to your Creator, and true self-esteem based in reality.

* * * * * * * * * *

¹The Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

²PERSON. This word is applied to men, women and children, who are called natural persons. In law, man and person are not exactly synonymous terms. Any human being is a man, whether he be a member of society or not, whatever may be the rank he holds, or whatever may be his age, sex, &c. A person is a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 137.
2. It is also used to denote a corporation which is an artificial person. 1 Bl. Com. 123; 4 Bing. 669; C. 33 Eng. C. L R. 488; Woodes. Lect. 116; Bac. Us. 57; 1 Mod. 164.
3. But when the word “Persons” is spoken of in legislative acts, natural persons will be intended, unless something appear in the context to show that it applies to artificial persons. 1 Scam. R. 178.
4. Natural persons are divided into males, or men; and females or women. Men are capable of all kinds of engagements and functions, unless by reasons applying to particular individuals. Women cannot be appointed to any public office, nor perform any civil functions, except those which the law specially declares them capable of exercising. Civ. Code of Louis. art. 25.
5. They are also sometimes divided into free persons and slaves. Freemen are those who have preserved their natural liberty, that is to say, who have the right of doing what is not forbidden by the law. A slave is one who is in the power of a master to whom he belongs. Slaves are sometimes ranked not with persons but things. But sometimes they are considered as persons for example, a negro is in contemplation of law a person, so as to be capable of committing a riot in conjunction with white men. 1 Bay, 358. Vide Man.
6. Persons are also divided into citizens, (q.v.) and aliens, (q.v.) when viewed with regard to their political rights. When they are considered in relation to their civil rights, they are living or civilly dead; vide Civil Death; outlaws; and infamous persons.
7. Persons are divided into legitimates and bastards, when examined as to their rights by birth.
8. When viewed in their domestic relations, they are divided into parents and children; husbands and wives; guardians and wards; and masters and servants son, as it is understood in law, see 1 Toull. n. 168; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 1890, note.

A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.